In Brief
A former Rajya Sabha member and her family filed an anticipatory bail application and submitted a vakalatnama (advocate authorisation deed) with a conflicting date—showing they signed it in Madurai on 17–18 August 2016, when records proved they were traveling overseas. The High Court found this was fraud on the court and directed lodging a forgery complaint. The Supreme Court held that fraud requires intentional deception for wrongful gain; a clerical error or inadvertent mistake does not suffice. The appellants admitted their signatures and provided a plausible explanation. Finding no evidence of intention to deceive or cause damage, the Court set aside the High Court's direction, quashed the FIR, and extended interim protection in related cases.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.